Why is that?
because of the practical realities of the situation--the several million Palestinians living there who really don't want a lot of Jews around. One could kill them all or push them someplace else, I suppose, or sit on them for decades in the hope they may someday agree, or just accept the pragmatic reality that the easiest solution to the problem is to let them be, relatively undisturbed. Which is your choice?
As for whether it's a good idea to withdraw in the face of terror, well, retreating from exposed positions is always difficult no matter when it's done. Properly understood, however, that's just a delayed cost of the original stupid decision to get yourself into a position from which you have to retreat, not a new problem. So the real people to blame for the withdrawal from Lebanon are not the Labor government which got out but the Likud government which got in, and the real people to blame for the withdrawal from the settlements are the idiots who erected them in the first place, not the people who want to abandon them now. To think otherwise is to give a complete veto over future policy to any previous person who managed to create a "fact on the ground." That's why I think the people who encouraged or made their peace with the settler movement during the 70s, 80s, and 90s bear a heavy share of responsibility for some of the mess Israel is in today.
tb@pragmatist.com |
